There's not a penalty to harsh for PSU!

[rockytop9808]

Were you for or against punishment to Miami and Ohio State? Would punishing those schools not hammer the athletes and coaches at the school who had no involvement in what the former coaches and players did?

I am for punishing the individuals who had oversight over violations or who perpetuated the violations.

 

[milohimself]

I think all of us care about the victims. I can go either way on whether the football program should be suspended. What I can't agree with is that the responsibility of the institution stops with the criminal proceedings of the individuals.

I don't accept the notion of institutional responsibility. I accept individual responsibility.

Guns are used to murder people sometimes, but guns are also beneficial to society on the whole so we don't ban guns.

Cars are used to murder (or rape) people sometimes but they are also beneficial so we don't ban cars.

A football program was used to rape children, but they are beneficial to society so we shouldn't ban football.

The program was the medium; the tool. You can't blame the football program for rape any more than you can blame a gun for murdering somebody

 

[vols4sure]

What do people in power now share with the people who were in power, the Penn State name?

Institutions are made up of people. When the responsible people are gone, what sense does it make to punish the people who stepped into the mess to try to make things better?

"Then you're sending the message that a program can get away with basically whatever the hell they want. You have to punish someone, and in this case, it warrants severity. Death penalty? Doubt it, but Miami should be reduced to a team comprised mostly of walkons at the very least, with a bowl ban for at minimum 4 years." - Signed Rockytop9808 8/19/2011

I understand the criminal v. athletic recruiting argument (don't agree with it though), but you were obviously for punishing people other than those directly responsible in the Miami case.

 

[knucklehead_vol]

Do you really see the NCAA as a child abuse prevention agency? I believe all of us appreciate kids over football. I don't believe that is the choice the NCAA faces.

Bear in mind, prison and financial liability weren't enough to protect the children in this case. The NCAA expanding its purview isn't going to deliver a better result.

No I don't. But I see it as a prevention of cover ups which lead to more rapes.

 

[OldandStillaVol]

What do people in power now share with the people who were in power, the Penn State name?

Institutions are made up of people. When the responsible people are gone, what sense does it make to punish the people who stepped into the mess to try to make things better?

So, if the Department of Education (trying to avoid the NCAA since its obviously a hot button) "recommends" to Penn State that they set up a large Foundation to help abuse victims in lieu of withdrawing certification due to violation of the Clery Act, would you oppose this?

I'm trying to understand whether you oppose any punishment or just the sanctioning of the football program.

 

[rockytop9808]

See this is where ignorance comes in. Rape is rape. And what makes it worse is it was kids. Your posts make me lean more towards the death penalty. But hey it was just kids right?

You completely miss the point.

The point being the NCAA's core purpose is:

to govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount.

Where does it say the NCAA's job is to regulate criminal cases? Where does it say that the NCAA can expand on criminal charges and hammer a university?

Everyone is up in arms and pushing the NCAA to step completely out of its element because kids were sexually assaulted. I'm not justifying Sandusky's actions, or the actions of anyone involved with the coverup. I'm arguing that the NCAA has no business being involved with this, and the old "do it for the kids" argument is nothing more than a sad cry to drum up emotions.

 

[rockytop9808]

"Then you're sending the message that a program can get away with basically whatever the hell they want. You have to punish someone, and in this case, it warrants severity. Death penalty? Doubt it, but Miami should be reduced to a team comprised mostly of walkons at the very least, with a bowl ban for at minimum 4 years." - Signed Rockytop9808 8/19/2011

I understand the criminal v. athletic recruiting argument (don't agree with it though), but you were obviously for punishing people other than those directly responsible in the Miami case.

There were several players currently at the school, along with administration, still active at Miami when those allegations came out.

If the NCAA wasn't so slow in investigating, that punishment would be fit to drill the people involved, including those who lacked oversight.

 

[rockytop9808]

So, if the Department of Education (trying to avoid the NCAA since its obviously a hot button) "recommends" to Penn State that they set up a large Foundation to help abuse victims in lieu of withdrawing certification due to violation of the Clery Act, would you oppose this?

I'm trying to understand whether you oppose any punishment or just the sanctioning of the football program.

I don't think the DoE should have the ability to force them to do anything. Whether they legitimately have that ability is not what I'm arguing, because I know they probably do.

I think the justice system punishing the individuals who perpetuated the offense is plenty. I think our culture of going well above and beyond justice is doing nothing but creating more injustice.

 

[CountVolcula]

Regardless of how you feel

It is the responsibility of the institution to insure that their employees act within the accepted moral and ethical rules set forth by the NCAA

Was their actions either moral or ethical?

Were there measures in place to assure this?


If your answers are no, then it is a matter that can be investigated and punished by the NCAA

 

[OldandStillaVol]

I don't accept the notion of institutional responsibility. I accept individual responsibility.

Guns are used to murder people sometimes, but guns are also beneficial to society on the whole so we don't ban guns.

Cars are used to murder (or rape) people sometimes but they are also beneficial so we don't ban cars.

A football program was used to rape children, but they are beneficial to society so we shouldn't ban football.

The program was the medium; the tool. You can't blame the football program for rape any more than you can blame a gun for murdering somebody

Sorry but I'm not following your gun and car analagies. The analgy I draw is more like: a large pharma company never discloses important safety information about a new drug from the public and makes a huge amount of money profiting from the drug over many years. Then, it is discovered that the safety issue which was never made public, has led to a number of deaths. I think the company should be held responsible (i.e pay fines and claims cases) and individuals at the company can be tried as well.

 

[rockytop9808]

Regardless of how you feel

It is the responsibility of the institution to insure that their employees act within the accepted moral and ethical rules set for by the NCAA

Was their actions either moral or ethical?

Were their measures in place to assure this?


If your answers are no, then it is a matter that can be investigated and punished by the NCAA

Can you please point me to the bylaws that specifically address the NCAA's ability to punish ethical violations?

Thanks.

 

[rockytop9808]

Sorry but I'm not following your gun and car analagies. The analgy I draw is more like: a large pharma company never discloses important safety information about a new drug from the public and makes a huge amount of money profiting from the drug over many years. Then, it is discovered that the safety issue which was never made public, has led to a number of deaths. I think the company should be held responsible (i.e pay fines and claims cases) and individuals at the company can be tried as well.

But do you think that people who come in after the company has removed the offenders from their positions should also be held liable simply because they work under the same name?

 

[OldandStillaVol]

I don't think the DoE should have the ability to force them to do anything. Whether they legitimately have that ability is not what I'm arguing, because I know they probably do.

I think the justice system punishing the individuals who perpetuated the offense is plenty. I think our culture of going well above and beyond justice is doing nothing but creating more injustice.

Ok, guess we'll have to disagree.

 

[CountVolcula]

Can you please point me to the bylaws that specifically address the NCAA's ability to punish ethical violations?

Thanks.

I can't link on phone, but read Emmerts letter to Penn State last November. It's outlined along with the questions that Penn State must answer in response to the letter

 

[OldandStillaVol]

But do you think that people who come in after the company has removed the offenders from their positions should also be held liable simply because they work under the same name?

Yes, I think it would be appropriate for the company to pay a large fine as punishment for withholding information. And yes, indirectly, this hurts many current employees who had nothing to do with the crime.

 

[rockytop9808]

Yes, I think it would be appropriate for the company to pay a large fine as punishment for withholding information. And yes, indirectly, this hurts many current employees who had nothing to do with the crime.

I just don't see how punishing those whose association with an offense is merely a name is a just way of going about things.

 

[CountVolcula]

I don't accept the notion of institutional responsibility. I accept individual responsibility.

Guns are used to murder people sometimes, but guns are also beneficial to society on the whole so we don't ban guns.

Cars are used to murder (or rape) people sometimes but they are also beneficial so we don't ban cars.

A football program was used to rape children, but they are beneficial to society so we shouldn't ban football.

The program was the medium; the tool. You can't blame the football program for rape any more than you can blame a gun for murdering somebody

It's not the guns or cars responsibility to insure that its owner acts responsible when handling either

It is the institutions responsibility to insure its employees act according to the best interest of the institution and the NCAA

Petrino got fired for doing less. Arkansas did what was in its power. They fired him for moral and ethical behavior

Penn State ignored much, much worse. It was morally corrupt to the core

 

[rockytop9808]

I can't link on phone, but read Emmerts letter to Penn State last November. It's outlined along with the questions that Penn State must answer in response to the letter

Seems to me that he is laying out ethical guidelines and saying that he could justify an abuse of these as lack of institutional control; this just seems like Emmert proceeding as usual and overreaching his bounds by using a loosely-defined bylaw to stretch his power.

What I found funny is that Emmert, in the letter, says the NCAA has used ethical guidelines in punishments before, then comes out and says there is little-to-no precedent for punishing Penn State.

 

[rockytop9808]

It's not the guns or cars responsibility to insure that its owner acts responsible when handling either

It is the institutions responsibility to insure its employees act according to the best interest of the institution and the NCAA

Petrino got fired for doing less. Arkansas did what was in its power. They fired him for moral and ethical behavior

Penn State ignored much, much worse. It wad morally corrupt to the core

And that core is long gone.

Are you forgetting that the universities are not the employees of the NCAA?

Employment and membership to an organization created and given power by the universities are vastly different. It's not an apt comparison.

 

[TrueOrange]

It's not the guns or cars responsibility to insure that its owner acts responsible when handling either

It is the institutions responsibility to insure its employees act according to the best interest of the institution and the NCAA

Petrino got fired for doing less. Arkansas did what was in its power. They fired him for moral and ethical behavior

Penn State ignored much, much worse. It wad morally corrupt to the core

Petrino got fired for doing less because of the university being an institution of the state (and I believe their being employees of the state, thus) and certain already lain out rules/law, which as such, his actions involving the hiring violated


(and/or the potential mess it could open)

 

[CountVolcula]

Seems to me that he is laying out ethical guidelines and saying that he could justify an abuse of these as lack of institutional control; this just seems like Emmert proceeding as usual and overreaching his bounds by using a loosely-defined bylaw to stretch his power.

What I found funny is that Emmert, in the letter, says the NCAA has used ethical guidelines in punishments before, then comes out and says there is little-to-no precedent for punishing Penn State.

Both PSU and then NCAA were waiting on the Freeh report

It's a classic case of Catch 22

All eyes are on the NCAA to set precedence in this case. I don't envy them

There will also be pressure on PSU from all angles to do something. They are going to make a lot of fans unhappy in Happy Valley

 

[OldandStillaVol]

I just don't see how punishing those whose association with an offense is merely a name is a just way of going about things.

Our difference is whether it is appropriate to punish an institution. In my opinion, both individual and institutional punishment are needed in serious infractions. You feel that institutional punishment isn't just.

In the drug company analogy, a reason for a large fine is to signal to all other drug companies that they had better have their act together regarding disclosing of safety information.

 

[knucklehead_vol]

You completely miss the point.

The point being the NCAA's core purpose is:



Where does it say the NCAA's job is to regulate criminal cases? Where does it say that the NCAA can expand on criminal charges and hammer a university?

Everyone is up in arms and pushing the NCAA to step completely out of its element because kids were sexually assaulted. I'm not justifying Sandusky's actions, or the actions of anyone involved with the coverup. I'm arguing that the NCAA has no business being involved with this, and the old "do it for the kids" argument is nothing more than a sad cry to drum up emotions.

No. Your presentation of the argument is weak. That's why its hard to understand.

And how immature to say do it for the kids when that's exactly what it's about.

 

[rockytop9808]

Both PSU and then NCAA were waiting on the Freeh report

It's a classic case of Catch 22

All eyes are on the NCAA to set precedence in this case. I don't envy them

There will also be pressure on PSU from all angles to do something. They are going to make a lot of fans unhappy in Happy Valley

And the precedent the NCAA should set is laid out in their purpose. They are in existence to govern sport, and that is what they should stick to.

Penn State got rid of everyone involved. The only things they should do are what they decide is best for them, i.e. tearing down the Paterno statue. Those things are up to the school and shouldn't be demanded by people not involved with the situation.

What I've got to say is mostly said, and I have stuff to do, so soon I'm going to be leaving for a while.

 

[rockytop9808]

No. Your presentation of the argument is weak. That's why its hard to understand.

And how immature to say do it for the kids when that's exactly what it's about.

Yes, the crime involved kids. And nobody else has struggled to follow my argument but yourself.

You are using the involvement of children as an argumentative fallacy to drudge emotion and make anyone who argues against you appear as a child-hating heathen. It's embarrassing, yet the same rut people who can't function on a level higher than emotion and instinct frequently fall into. See: the people who gather en masse at many political rallies.